- An update: William C,. take heart: another Boston Globe reader (with more time than I have to write letters) responded to yesterday s misguided editorial withMessage 1 of 139 , Dec 1, 2006View SourceAn update:
William C,. take heart: another Boston Globe reader (with more time than
I have to write letters) responded to yesterday's misguided editorial
with a letter the Globe headlined "Muddle Earth":
I especially liked the part where he referred to Jackson's Aragorn as "a
violent and confused travel guide seeking only to escape his
inheritance." My own feelings lie very much with the letter writer;
Jackson's visual sense is superb, but his understanding of Tolkien's
moral sensibilities is, at best, underdeveloped.
- ... I would assume, since Serkis is a very good actor, that he was playing the part as directed. It s an actor s job to play the character as interpreted andMessage 139 of 139 , Dec 18, 2006View Source
>I would assume, since Serkis is a very good actor, that he was playing the
> For my part, seeing Serkis's excellent work in other films (most
> recently"The Prestige") has made me even more appalled at his bizarre
> Gollum, especially in the one place he appears directly, the flashback
> scene with Deagol.
part as directed. It's an actor's job to play the character as interpreted
and instructed by the director, and if the director wants the character
played "goofball", that's what the actor delivers. Even so, he did an
excellent acting job, and Gollum wasn't treated nearly as badly as Gimli
Wil Wheaton has something to say on the subject - he repeatedly begged to be
able to play Wesley more like a normal teenager and not "annoying boy
genius", but was overruled.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]